Where I Find Myself At

[Fuzzy Bear]

https://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/american-conservatism-is-fiddling-while-rome-burns/

I've certainly been reluctant to take on the label of "conservative" for a number of reasons, some of which are articulated in this article:

Conservatism is the seven cheers for capitalism and the deafening silence on demographic change, feminism, and corporate malfeasance. It’s the same tired cast of speakers blathering about limited government almost a century after the New Deal. It’s the platitudinous Reagan quotes and the worn-out Buckley anecdotes. It’s the mindless optimism and the childish exhortations—if something can’t go on forever, it won’t!

This was the state of the GOP when I joined the Forum here in 2012.  I was a registered Republican and an ancestral Democrat who was in a phase of voting for mostly Democrats, but holding socially conservative views, hoping that the Democratic Party would change to the place where social conservatives could have their place in the party.  This was naive on my part; with every 1994 and 2010 landslide, it was the more socially conservative and reasonable Democrats that either lost or retired, to be replaced by Republicans.  Often, many of the Republicans replacing those Democrats were the kind of Republican Mr. Azzerad describes in the article I cite, but that type of Republican did not serve well the kind of Democrats that were the swing voters that changed those districts. 

But conservatism is also the endless wars, the nation-building, and the outdated alliances. It’s the free trade fetish. It’s the foolish libertarianism that hates the government more than it loves America. It’s the unconscionable refusal to clamp down on immigration.

Worst of all, conservatism is the cowardice and accommodation in the face of leftist hegemony. It’s the long list of enemies to the Right. It’s the court eunuchs and other members of the controlled opposition who offer an echo, but never a choice. It’s the faux grandstanding while living in fear of being called a racist.

This is the "conservatism" that has been complicit in the construction of the American Oligarchy; a coalition of Democrats and Never-Trumpers.  The conservatism that has produced record income inequality and demolished upward social mobility, something that conservatism once viewed as important.  Note that this was the coalition (neo-liberal Democrats and establishment Never Trumpers) that supported the great bailouts of the financial industry in 2008-2009.  The conservatism that "damaged the brand".  It was around 2009 that being called a "conservative" was no longer something people tried to do, and when Democrats stopped pretending they were "conservative" on much of anything.  (Democrats no longer try to insist they are really conservatives, and that's good, because they're not conservative in any way nowadays.) 

And yet conservatism, in its dotage, cannot shake the nagging suspicion that it no longer speaks to the country it loves, in particular to those who have no living memory of the Cold War. This dawning realization could be amplified through probing questions: is America today more conservative than it was when the conservative movement began 70 or so years ago? Is conservatism itself as conservative as it was then? On the off chance that the conservative agenda were to be implemented, would it fundamentally transform the United States of America and lead to conservative hegemony (or would it simply save us money and buy us time)?

Consider the above.  What political figures of today does that paragraph describe?  George W. Bush.
Mitch McConnell?  Mitt Romney?  Lindsey Graham?  Paul Ryan?  Pretty much.  These conservatives DON'T speak to the Country they purport to love, and that's because they failed to conserve what was important for them.  It was important for them to be protected from the damage to their livelihoods that free trade and unfettered immigration have wrought, but the people funding them make money off of those. 

Ours is obviously a non-libertarian Right. The common enemy that justified an alliance with the free market fundamentalists is long gone. Today, libertarians actively side with our enemies: they promote open borders and empty prisons, and strengthen China’s hand through their consumer-focused economic policies. Ours is primarily a conservatism of countries and borders, citizens and families, none of which can take root in the barren libertarian soil of atomized individuals and global markets.

In reading this, I now see why I have such disagreements with the Libertarian Yellow avatars here.  Libertarians here seem fine with our dependence on China in the name of Free Trade, while blind to the idea that China's Rise has profited America's economic elite while damaging the American nation as a whole. 

Regardless of where I've been at, politically, in my life, I have always rooted for America to succeed.  I have rooted for America to win our wars, even as I have not advocated for most of the wars we have fought.  I have always believed that America is a GOOD Nation, and one that needs no apology; it is a nation that has had a greater capacity to right its own wrongs than any other, and one that has been a force for Good in the World on balance.  The position of others is one which essentially asserts that America must be perfect, or else it is Scum, but it's fine for China and South Africa and Iran to be just as they are, and that we need to be more like the EU.  I reject all of that.  I once thought these sort of issues could be worked out within the Democratic Party, but this is no longer the case.  We have a Democratic Party who hates the American Nation, while we have a Republican Party where there is at least a fight on these issues here.

More than a century and a half ago Alexis de Tocqueville made the striking observation that an individualistic society depends on a communitarian institution like the family for its continued existence. The family cannot be constituted like the liberal state, nor can it be governed entirely by that state's principles. Yet the family serves as the seedbed for the virtues required by a liberal state. The family is responsible for teaching lessons of independence, self-restraint, responsibility, and right conduct, which are essential to a free, democratic society. If the family fails in these tasks, then the entire experiment in democratic self-rule is jeopardized.

Azerrad emphasizes these points.  Immigration levels ARE unsustainable; they put the most stress on our least skilled workers and their families.  Demographic change, as it is done now, is done without regard as to whether or not the new immigrants are truly amenable to the ideas of liberal democracy.  The decline of the nuclear family is, indeed, very much the biggest threat to democracy.  Indeed, the mobs in the streets since May, 2020 are anti-family mobs; BLM specifically opposes the concept of the Traditional Nuclear Family and Antifa are a group of those who simply "don't do family".  The seedbed for democracy preserving virtue is being trashed.   The joke is when the Pelosi's and such view Donald Trump and his supporters as threats to "Our Democracy".  One writer recently pointed out that when they say "Our Democracy" they really mean "Their Oligarchy".  That is something that Americans understand instinctively, and "our Republic" (with democratic features) is something our conservatives ought to be actively seeing to conserve - or restore.

We must develop policies commensurate with these problems, identify plausible ways to implement them in a hostile landscape, and ensure they are enforced once enacted. Since the entirety of America’s rotten ruling class will oppose us, this bold undertaking requires both prudence and courage.

Indeed.  What a great idea that government policy reflects the wishes of those that elect them.

[DavidB.]

Absolutely great article.

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

The minute that article called out conservatism for its “deafening silence on demographic change” I stopped caring. That’s not a dogwhistle, that’s a bullhorn.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

The greatest lie every told was that by Reaganites asserting that they were "not conservatives, but the Conservatives" and no other form of conservatism existed.

The decline of what this article speaks of is not the "decline of conservatism", but the reassessing of what it means to be a conservative in a given period and a different form of conservatism (more nationalist, less liberal in the old school sense) asserting itself as the dominant form of the brand.

The reality is there are multitudes of different forms of conservatism and Reaganism is just one form, but acknowledging the existence of others, limits your ability to control the space. This is why Reaganism was able to purge other forms and why libertarians were on the outs in the 2000s and why the Neocons are on the outs now.

[Fuzzy Bear]

The minute that article called out conservatism for its “deafening silence on demographic change” I stopped caring. That’s not a dogwhistle, that’s a bullhorn.

When your government is flat out ignoring your immigration laws and allowing huge numbers of poor, low-skilled illegal aliens to enter the US, why should ordinary Americans of all backgrounds be concerned?  Who will feed these people?  Where will they live?  Who will provide them employment?

What about the consequences of not upholding the Rule of Law?  What does it say when we don't enforce our immigration laws, even against criminals?

What are we going to tell these people as they progress toward citizenship?  That we are a systemically racist country?  That the sole reason people don't like the fact they are here is because they are White Supremacists?  What are we going to tell these people about the fundamentals of the country that they get to stay in after they crashed our border?

Conservatives SHOULD be concerned about these issues.  Conservatism starts with conserving the Rule of Law; it's why people want to come here in the first place (whether they realize it or not). 

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

The minute that article called out conservatism for its “deafening silence on demographic change” I stopped caring. That’s not a dogwhistle, that’s a bullhorn.

When your government is flat out ignoring your immigration laws and allowing huge numbers of poor, low-skilled illegal aliens to enter the US, why should ordinary Americans of all backgrounds be concerned?  Who will feed these people?  Where will they live?  Who will provide them employment?

What about the consequences of not upholding the Rule of Law?  What does it say when we don't enforce our immigration laws, even against criminals?

What are we going to tell these people as they progress toward citizenship?  That we are a systemically racist country?  That the sole reason people don't like the fact they are here is because they are White Supremacists?  What are we going to tell these people about the fundamentals of the country that they get to stay in after they crashed our border?

Conservatives SHOULD be concerned about these issues.  Conservatism starts with conserving the Rule of Law; it's why people want to come here in the first place (whether they realize it or not). 

I want you to tell me what the problem is with “demographic change”. Not immigration policy. Demographic change. If you’re going to defend that article, defend what it actually says, not what you want it to say.

[DavidB.]

The fact that this article offends left-wingers so much by simply mentioning demographic change (i.e. population replacement of Europeans) shows exactly why it was so badly needed. If China can be predominantly Chinese and Nigeria can be predominantly Nigerian, why can't Europe and the U.S. - which was built up by Europeans - be predominantly European? Doesn't mean no newcomers are welcome, that would be an absurd position. But a conservative immigration policy does mean prudence both in terms of numbers and in terms of the choice of which newcomers to allow in, as newcomers with more similar cultural backgrounds simply blend in more easily. If we don't do this, what our ancestors have built up is at risk of being washed away, and this is what we're seeing across the West these days.

[OSR stands with Israel]

The fact that this article offends left-wingers so much by simply mentioning demographic change (i.e. population replacement of Europeans) shows exactly why it was so badly needed. If China can be predominantly Chinese and Nigeria can be predominantly Nigerian, why can't Europe and the U.S. - which was built up by Europeans - be predominantly European? Doesn't mean no newcomers are welcome, that would be an absurd position. But a conservative immigration policy does mean prudence both in terms of numbers and in terms of the choice of which newcomers to allow in, as newcomers with more similar cultural backgrounds simply blend in more easily. If we don't do this, what our ancestors have built up is at risk of being washed away, and this is what we're seeing across the West these days.

The US was never an ethnostate and immigrants to the US actually assimilate here unlike in much of Europe .


The US was built by successive immigrant waves where different people came in from other waves

[Frodo]

The fact that this article offends left-wingers so much by simply mentioning demographic change (i.e. population replacement of Europeans) shows exactly why it was so badly needed. If China can be predominantly Chinese and Nigeria can be predominantly Nigerian, why can't Europe and the U.S. - which was built up by Europeans - be predominantly European? Doesn't mean no newcomers are welcome, that would be an absurd position. But a conservative immigration policy does mean prudence both in terms of numbers and in terms of the choice of which newcomers to allow in, as newcomers with more similar cultural backgrounds simply blend in more easily. If we don't do this, what our ancestors have built up is at risk of being washed away, and this is what we're seeing across the West these days.

Because we are a nation-state, and not a white ethno-state.  We don't define Americans by the color of their skin but by the American Creed:

I believe in the United States of America, as a government of the people, by the people, for the people; whose just powers are derived from the consent of the governed; a democracy in a republic; a sovereign Nation of many sovereign States; a perfect union, one and inseparable; established upon those principles of freedom, equality, justice, and humanity for which American patriots sacrificed their lives and fortunes. I therefore believe it is my duty to my country to love it, to support its Constitution, to obey its laws, to respect its flag, and to defend it against all enemies.

Nowhere does it state or imply that you have to have a European background to be considered fully an American citizen.  

[𝕭𝖆𝖕𝖙𝖎𝖘𝖙𝖆 𝕸𝖎𝖓𝖔𝖑𝖆]

The fact that this article offends left-wingers so much by simply mentioning demographic change (i.e. population replacement of Europeans) shows exactly why it was so badly needed. If China can be predominantly Chinese and Nigeria can be predominantly Nigerian, why can't Europe and the U.S. - which was built up by Europeans - be predominantly European? Doesn't mean no newcomers are welcome, that would be an absurd position. But a conservative immigration policy does mean prudence both in terms of numbers and in terms of the choice of which newcomers to allow in, as newcomers with more similar cultural backgrounds simply blend in more easily. If we don't do this, what our ancestors have built up is at risk of being washed away, and this is what we're seeing across the West these days.

Oh well. Nigeria has over 250 ethnic groups and the largest one (Hausa) barely forms 30% of the population. Sectional conflicts and strifes are a constant in the history of the country. You think that's more homogeneous than your average European country? Lol.

[DavidB.]

The fact that this article offends left-wingers so much by simply mentioning demographic change (i.e. population replacement of Europeans) shows exactly why it was so badly needed. If China can be predominantly Chinese and Nigeria can be predominantly Nigerian, why can't Europe and the U.S. - which was built up by Europeans - be predominantly European? Doesn't mean no newcomers are welcome, that would be an absurd position. But a conservative immigration policy does mean prudence both in terms of numbers and in terms of the choice of which newcomers to allow in, as newcomers with more similar cultural backgrounds simply blend in more easily. If we don't do this, what our ancestors have built up is at risk of being washed away, and this is what we're seeing across the West these days.

Oh well. Nigeria has over 250 ethnic groups and the largest one (Hausa) barely forms 30% of the population. Sectional conflicts and strifes are a constant in the history of the country. You think that's more homogeneous than your average European country? Lol.

You think Nigeria has become more successful because of their multiculturalism? Based on your answer you don't.

[TheDeadFlagBlues]

With all due respect, I cannot endure any media outlet publishing a pile of excrement as an "essay". The notion that the United States is experiencing "unsustainable" levels of immigration is nonsense. In absolute terms, levels of immigration are at historic lows. In relative terms, they have not been as low as the present in generations. The United States is currently experiencing massive labor shortages that are leaving vital industries short-staffed and that are contributing to massive reductions in both the quality of service/care and, also, to price inflation. Instead of the purported benefits of a tight labor market, we are seeing worker wages declining rapidly in real-terms as their jobs become more stressful and exhausting.

If you want to make the case that suspending immigration is desirable because you hate brown skin or people who speak strange tongues, that's all well and good, you are entitled to this form of prejudice. Do not promote empirically untrue claims about immigration reducing wages or harming the economy - this is a load of garbage, utter nonsense etc.

[TheDeadFlagBlues]

The fact that this article offends left-wingers so much by simply mentioning demographic change (i.e. population replacement of Europeans) shows exactly why it was so badly needed. If China can be predominantly Chinese and Nigeria can be predominantly Nigerian, why can't Europe and the U.S. - which was built up by Europeans - be predominantly European? Doesn't mean no newcomers are welcome, that would be an absurd position. But a conservative immigration policy does mean prudence both in terms of numbers and in terms of the choice of which newcomers to allow in, as newcomers with more similar cultural backgrounds simply blend in more easily. If we don't do this, what our ancestors have built up is at risk of being washed away, and this is what we're seeing across the West these days.

Please stop merging the United States with the mausoleum and antique museum that is Europe, thanks!

Edit: this is far too heated. What I mean to say is that even though contemporary American immigration policy is extremely restrictive, the vast majority of Americans continue to see immigrants in basically positive terms.

[𝕭𝖆𝖕𝖙𝖎𝖘𝖙𝖆 𝕸𝖎𝖓𝖔𝖑𝖆]

The fact that this article offends left-wingers so much by simply mentioning demographic change (i.e. population replacement of Europeans) shows exactly why it was so badly needed. If China can be predominantly Chinese and Nigeria can be predominantly Nigerian, why can't Europe and the U.S. - which was built up by Europeans - be predominantly European? Doesn't mean no newcomers are welcome, that would be an absurd position. But a conservative immigration policy does mean prudence both in terms of numbers and in terms of the choice of which newcomers to allow in, as newcomers with more similar cultural backgrounds simply blend in more easily. If we don't do this, what our ancestors have built up is at risk of being washed away, and this is what we're seeing across the West these days.

Oh well. Nigeria has over 250 ethnic groups and the largest one (Hausa) barely forms 30% of the population. Sectional conflicts and strifes are a constant in the history of the country. You think that's more homogeneous than your average European country? Lol.

You think Nigeria has become more successful because of their multiculturalism? Based on your answer you don't.

Let me see - either you are clearly oblivious on how Nigeria came to be a very multiethnic country, or you are asking me whether I think Nigeria is more successful than a Yoruba ethnostate, an Igbo ethnostate, a Hausa ethnostate etc. would collectively be. I have a hunch the former is more likely, however...

[Хahar 🤔]

I don't think it's worth anyone's time to argue with a literal white nationalist.

[DavidB.]

Edit: this is far too heated. What I mean to say is that even though contemporary American immigration policy is extremely restrictive, the vast majority of Americans continue to see immigrants in basically positive terms.

And rightly so. Immigrants are ordinary people like you and me, trying to build a better future, like we all do. No one can blame them. That doesn't mean, however, that restrictive and selective immigration policies can be - and, in my opinion, currently are - prudent.

[pikachu]

The fact that this article offends left-wingers so much by simply mentioning demographic change (i.e. population replacement of Europeans) shows exactly why it was so badly needed. If China can be predominantly Chinese and Nigeria can be predominantly Nigerian, why can't Europe and the U.S. - which was built up by Europeans - be predominantly European? Doesn't mean no newcomers are welcome, that would be an absurd position. But a conservative immigration policy does mean prudence both in terms of numbers and in terms of the choice of which newcomers to allow in, as newcomers with more similar cultural backgrounds simply blend in more easily. If we don't do this, what our ancestors have built up is at risk of being washed away, and this is what we're seeing across the West these days.

The group which inspires the most passion in the contemporary American immigration debate are Latinos who afaik are descended from (a) Europeans and (b) people who were in this hemisphere before then so I don’t get the relevance of this argument? Ofc, as a leftie, I dislike the argument as a whole, but I really don’t get the assimilationist argument wrt America in this case – I don’t see why assimilating Latinos is any harder than with immigrant groups in the past? In fact, the opposite might be true?

[TheDeadFlagBlues]

The fact that this article offends left-wingers so much by simply mentioning demographic change (i.e. population replacement of Europeans) shows exactly why it was so badly needed. If China can be predominantly Chinese and Nigeria can be predominantly Nigerian, why can't Europe and the U.S. - which was built up by Europeans - be predominantly European? Doesn't mean no newcomers are welcome, that would be an absurd position. But a conservative immigration policy does mean prudence both in terms of numbers and in terms of the choice of which newcomers to allow in, as newcomers with more similar cultural backgrounds simply blend in more easily. If we don't do this, what our ancestors have built up is at risk of being washed away, and this is what we're seeing across the West these days.

The group which inspires the most passion in the contemporary American immigration debate are Latinos who afaik are descended from (a) Europeans and (b) people who were in this hemisphere before then so I don’t get the relevance of this argument? Ofc, as a leftie, I dislike the argument as a whole, but I really don’t get the assimilationist argument wrt America in this case – I don’t see why assimilating Latinos is any harder than with immigrant groups in the past? In fact, the opposite might be true?

Nope, sorry, being European culturally is actually a blood quantum and skull shapes, not about traditions and rituals such as "speaking Spanish", "being Christian", "celebrating Catholic feast days", reading Cervantes and Homer etc. All of that isn't culturally European, it actually has nothing to do with Europe - being culturally European is about whether or not Woodrow Wilson thinks you're a "wog" or not.

Ultimately, white nationalists tell on themselves everytime they insist that immigrants from Latin America are cultural freaks. Who, exactly, do they think is responsible for names such as "Texas", "Arizona", "California"? Where do they think the name "New Mexico" comes from - do they think some cute blonde dog walker invented that one? Do they think that the clothes worn by actors in classic Westerns are traditional garb of pilgrim Yankees? Do they think that there is a cowboy culture of Ireland? They are either mental midgets, complete morons, or, they are extreme racists or they are both.

[Former President tack50]

The minute that article called out conservatism for its “deafening silence on demographic change” I stopped caring. That’s not a dogwhistle, that’s a bullhorn.

When your government is flat out ignoring your immigration laws and allowing huge numbers of poor, low-skilled illegal aliens to enter the US, why should ordinary Americans of all backgrounds be concerned?  Who will feed these people?  Where will they live?  Who will provide them employment?

What about the consequences of not upholding the Rule of Law?  What does it say when we don't enforce our immigration laws, even against criminals?

What are we going to tell these people as they progress toward citizenship?  That we are a systemically racist country?  That the sole reason people don't like the fact they are here is because they are White Supremacists?  What are we going to tell these people about the fundamentals of the country that they get to stay in after they crashed our border?

Conservatives SHOULD be concerned about these issues.  Conservatism starts with conserving the Rule of Law; it's why people want to come here in the first place (whether they realize it or not). 

Hasn't illegal immigration to the US actually gone down compared to its peak some time in the 2000s?

I am certainly not an "open borders" kind of person by any means and new illegal arrivals should be deported asap; (and I'd like to see what % of illegal immigrants to the US get deported tbh). As well as requiring that any asylum/refugee seekers apply at an embassy.

But I am also pretty sure that illegal immigration as an issue has gone down in importance, not up in the US

[Devout Centrist]

I’ll add my own take later, but I find this quote -

If China can be predominantly Chinese

especially laughable since a) China’s overall fertility rate has crashed and they should absolutely consider attracting a lot of immigrants and b) China is being harshly criticized by the international community for cultural genocide!

[Marx]

You really should just read The Communist Manifesto , and read it broadly, as a prediction of the future as well as an address to the present of 1848: Marx predicted all you hate, and you can't stop it.

The bourgeoisie, historically, has played a most revolutionary part.

The bourgeoisie, wherever it has got the upper hand, has put an end to all feudal, patriarchal, idyllic relations. It has pitilessly torn asunder the motley feudal ties that bound man to his “natural superiors”, and has left remaining no other nexus between man and man than naked self-interest, than callous “cash payment”. It has drowned the most heavenly ecstasies of religious fervour, of chivalrous enthusiasm, of philistine sentimentalism, in the icy water of egotistical calculation. It has resolved personal worth into exchange value, and in place of the numberless indefeasible chartered freedoms, has set up that single, unconscionable freedom — Free Trade. In one word, for exploitation, veiled by religious and political illusions, it has substituted naked, shameless, direct, brutal exploitation.

The bourgeoisie has stripped of its halo every occupation hitherto honoured and looked up to with reverent awe. It has converted the physician, the lawyer, the priest, the poet, the man of science, into its paid wage labourers.

The bourgeoisie has torn away from the family its sentimental veil, and has reduced the family relation to a mere money relation.

The bourgeoisie has disclosed how it came to pass that the brutal display of vigour in the Middle Ages, which reactionaries so much admire, found its fitting complement in the most slothful indolence. It has been the first to show what man’s activity can bring about. It has accomplished wonders far surpassing Egyptian pyramids, Roman aqueducts, and Gothic cathedrals; it has conducted expeditions that put in the shade all former Exoduses of nations and crusades.

The bourgeoisie cannot exist without constantly revolutionising the instruments of production, and thereby the relations of production, and with them the whole relations of society. Conservation of the old modes of production in unaltered form, was, on the contrary, the first condition of existence for all earlier industrial classes. Constant revolutionising of production, uninterrupted disturbance of all social conditions, everlasting uncertainty and agitation distinguish the bourgeois epoch from all earlier ones. All fixed, fast-frozen relations, with their train of ancient and venerable prejudices and opinions, are swept away, all new-formed ones become antiquated before they can ossify. All that is solid melts into air, all that is holy is profaned, and man is at last compelled to face with sober senses his real conditions of life, and his relations with his kind.

You despise the inherent progressivity of bourgeois rule. You are incapable of stopping it. There is no.standing athwart History, yelling "stop" within the capitalist epoch. The future will be utterly unrecognizable to you. Capitalism is simply the forward progress of Capital, a literal disembodied social force or social abstraction presently being generated by humanity, which dislocates and will eventually destroy everything antecedent to itself.

Marx, for example, anticipates the abolition of the family within capitalism , not as a leftist policy goal but as a consequence of the inevitable, and irreversible, working out of Capital upon humanity.

[Person Man]

You really should just read The Communist Manifesto , and read it broadly, as a prediction of the future as well as an address to the present of 1848: Marx predicted all you hate, and you can't stop it.

The bourgeoisie, historically, has played a most revolutionary part.

The bourgeoisie, wherever it has got the upper hand, has put an end to all feudal, patriarchal, idyllic relations. It has pitilessly torn asunder the motley feudal ties that bound man to his “natural superiors”, and has left remaining no other nexus between man and man than naked self-interest, than callous “cash payment”. It has drowned the most heavenly ecstasies of religious fervour, of chivalrous enthusiasm, of philistine sentimentalism, in the icy water of egotistical calculation. It has resolved personal worth into exchange value, and in place of the numberless indefeasible chartered freedoms, has set up that single, unconscionable freedom — Free Trade. In one word, for exploitation, veiled by religious and political illusions, it has substituted naked, shameless, direct, brutal exploitation.

The bourgeoisie has stripped of its halo every occupation hitherto honoured and looked up to with reverent awe. It has converted the physician, the lawyer, the priest, the poet, the man of science, into its paid wage labourers.

The bourgeoisie has torn away from the family its sentimental veil, and has reduced the family relation to a mere money relation.

The bourgeoisie has disclosed how it came to pass that the brutal display of vigour in the Middle Ages, which reactionaries so much admire, found its fitting complement in the most slothful indolence. It has been the first to show what man’s activity can bring about. It has accomplished wonders far surpassing Egyptian pyramids, Roman aqueducts, and Gothic cathedrals; it has conducted expeditions that put in the shade all former Exoduses of nations and crusades.

The bourgeoisie cannot exist without constantly revolutionising the instruments of production, and thereby the relations of production, and with them the whole relations of society. Conservation of the old modes of production in unaltered form, was, on the contrary, the first condition of existence for all earlier industrial classes. Constant revolutionising of production, uninterrupted disturbance of all social conditions, everlasting uncertainty and agitation distinguish the bourgeois epoch from all earlier ones. All fixed, fast-frozen relations, with their train of ancient and venerable prejudices and opinions, are swept away, all new-formed ones become antiquated before they can ossify. All that is solid melts into air, all that is holy is profaned, and man is at last compelled to face with sober senses his real conditions of life, and his relations with his kind.

You despise the inherent progressivity of bourgeois rule. You are incapable of stopping it. There is no.standing athwart History, yelling "stop" within the capitalist epoch. The future will be utterly unrecognizable to you. Capitalism is simply the forward progress of Capital, a literal disembodied social force or social abstraction presently being generated by humanity, which dislocates and will eventually destroy everything antecedent to itself.

Marx, for example, anticipates the abolition of the family within capitalism , not as a leftist policy goal but as a consequence of the inevitable, and irreversible, working out of Capital upon humanity.

I guess that’s why these right-wing regimes only stick together so long as they are able to keep throwing people out of helicopters though I don’t necessarily believe that capitalism will destroy families. Families will always be here no matter what anyone does or thinks. As long as there are people, there will be families. Will they be what you want or be to your standards? Probably not. Then again, families were never the same for long.

[Marx]

You really should just read The Communist Manifesto , and read it broadly, as a prediction of the future as well as an address to the present of 1848: Marx predicted all you hate, and you can't stop it.

The bourgeoisie, historically, has played a most revolutionary part.

The bourgeoisie, wherever it has got the upper hand, has put an end to all feudal, patriarchal, idyllic relations. It has pitilessly torn asunder the motley feudal ties that bound man to his “natural superiors”, and has left remaining no other nexus between man and man than naked self-interest, than callous “cash payment”. It has drowned the most heavenly ecstasies of religious fervour, of chivalrous enthusiasm, of philistine sentimentalism, in the icy water of egotistical calculation. It has resolved personal worth into exchange value, and in place of the numberless indefeasible chartered freedoms, has set up that single, unconscionable freedom — Free Trade. In one word, for exploitation, veiled by religious and political illusions, it has substituted naked, shameless, direct, brutal exploitation.

The bourgeoisie has stripped of its halo every occupation hitherto honoured and looked up to with reverent awe. It has converted the physician, the lawyer, the priest, the poet, the man of science, into its paid wage labourers.

The bourgeoisie has torn away from the family its sentimental veil, and has reduced the family relation to a mere money relation.

The bourgeoisie has disclosed how it came to pass that the brutal display of vigour in the Middle Ages, which reactionaries so much admire, found its fitting complement in the most slothful indolence. It has been the first to show what man’s activity can bring about. It has accomplished wonders far surpassing Egyptian pyramids, Roman aqueducts, and Gothic cathedrals; it has conducted expeditions that put in the shade all former Exoduses of nations and crusades.

The bourgeoisie cannot exist without constantly revolutionising the instruments of production, and thereby the relations of production, and with them the whole relations of society. Conservation of the old modes of production in unaltered form, was, on the contrary, the first condition of existence for all earlier industrial classes. Constant revolutionising of production, uninterrupted disturbance of all social conditions, everlasting uncertainty and agitation distinguish the bourgeois epoch from all earlier ones. All fixed, fast-frozen relations, with their train of ancient and venerable prejudices and opinions, are swept away, all new-formed ones become antiquated before they can ossify. All that is solid melts into air, all that is holy is profaned, and man is at last compelled to face with sober senses his real conditions of life, and his relations with his kind.

You despise the inherent progressivity of bourgeois rule. You are incapable of stopping it. There is no.standing athwart History, yelling "stop" within the capitalist epoch. The future will be utterly unrecognizable to you. Capitalism is simply the forward progress of Capital, a literal disembodied social force or social abstraction presently being generated by humanity, which dislocates and will eventually destroy everything antecedent to itself.

Marx, for example, anticipates the abolition of the family within capitalism , not as a leftist policy goal but as a consequence of the inevitable, and irreversible, working out of Capital upon humanity.

I guess that’s why these right-wing regimes only stick together so long as they are able to keep throwing people out of helicopters though I don’t necessarily believe that capitalism will destroy families. Families will always be here no matter what anyone does or thinks. As long as there are people, there will be families. Will they be what you want or be to your standards? Probably not. Then again, families were never the same for long.

It's a multi generational phenomenon. Towards the end phase of capitalist history, children will probably be raised collectively, creche-style, and educated from birth to work for corporations. They'll also probably be fully legally empowered from pubescence.

[Ferguson97]

The minute that article called out conservatism for its “deafening silence on demographic change” I stopped caring. That’s not a dogwhistle, that’s a bullhorn.

Yeah, I’m really tired of people acting like there is any good-faith concerns about “demographic change”.

[Continential]

I can't wait for DavidB's response he'll probably never make.